Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

An Outline of the Religious Literature of India c10: Chapter V

An Outline of the Religious Literature of India c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V

c10.1

A. D. 550-900.

c10.2

§ 189. The date with which our chapter opens is meant to coincide with the time when the Śākta systems began to appear; for they are unquestionably the most noteworthy product of these times. The exaltation and the adoration of goddesses is manifestly the first characteristic of these new theologies; but other forms of faith and practice were very prominent: an immense extension of the use of magic spells; a belief in the existence of occult channels and ganglia in the human frame, and in the presence of the goddess herself—coiled up like a snake and asleep—in the chief ganglion; a new type of hypnotic meditation believed to be potent to wake the goddess; and, in some sects, the inclusion in the cult of foul, gruesome, and degrading practices.

c10.3

During this period the sects became more highly organized than ever before. In addition to the Śākta element already described, each sect was expected to possess an Upanishad and a manual;—the Upanishad to prove that its teaching had come by revelation and was in full consonance with the Vedānta; the manual to provide a statement of the theology of the sect, a directory of its occult yoga practice, rules of conduct and ritual, and directions for the preparation of images and the building of temples. Each sect had its own order of sannyāsīs. Each was also expected to train a number of gurus for its cultured members. The layman received initiation, dīkshā, and regular instruction in the philosophical theology of the sect from his guru, just like an ascetic. Finally, each sect had its own mantra and sect-mark, tilaka.

c10.4

One of the most noticeable features of the period is the great series of philosophic thinkers and exegetes who adorned the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, chiefly in the North. Scarcely less important is the great company of itinerant poet-musicians, both Vaishṇava and Śaiva, who filled the temples of the Tamil country with their devotion and their song.

c10.5

Buddhism was carried to Japan in the sixth, and to Tibet in the seventh century, while long-continued emigration carried both Hinduism and Buddhism to Cambodia, Sumatra, and Java. But India received as well as gave. A company of Persian Zoroastrians, hunted to the death by their Muham-madan conquerors, found asylum in India at the beginning of the eighth century: their descendants are the Parsis of to-day.

A. The Philosophics.

c10.t1.1

a. The Karma Mīmāmsā.

c10.t1.2

§ 190. During the first half of the period, the Karma Mīmāmsā produced two famous scholars, Prabhākara, who is known as Guru, and Kumārila, who is called Bhaṭṭa. Both expounded Śabara's Bhāshya, but they differed in some degree in their interpretation of the system and founded rival schools. The date of Prabhākara in unknown, but it is clear that he preceded Kumārila. His work, the Bṛihatī, is purely an exposition of the Bhāshya: he does not criticize Śabara.¹ Kumārila, who seems to have lived in the first half of the eighth century,² wrote a commentary on the Bhāshya in three parts, in which he frequently differs from Śabara:

c10.t1.3

¹ Jhā, PSPM. 12.

c10.t1.4

² Pāthak, JBBRAS. 1892, 227.

c10.t1.5

a. Ślokavārtika: verse: on the first part of Chap. I.

c10.t1.6

b. *Tantravārtika*: prose: on the rest of Chap. I and Chaps. II and III.

c10.t1.7

c. *Ṭupṭikā*: prose: brief notes on Chaps. IV to XII.

c10.t1.8

Prabhākara’s teaching was further expounded by his own disciple, Sālikānātha, while Maṇḍanamiśra, also called Sureśvarāchārya, a disciple of Śaṅkara, wrote several works on Kumārila’s system. His *Vidhiviveka* was in turn expounded in the *Nyāya-Kaṇikā* by Vāchaspati-miśra, whose position is explained below.

c10.t1.9

Both Prabhākara and Kumārila maintain the original atheism of the system, denying that divine action is needed in creation, or in apportioning merit and demerit to souls. Both also hold a realistic view of the universe; but they differ on the question whether the soul is pure consciousness or not, on the nature of perception, of inference, and of logical categories.¹

c10.t1.10

¹ For both systems see Jhā, *PSPM*. and Keith, *JRAS*. 1916, 369. Also Jhā, *Bhandarkar CV*. 167.

c10.t1.11

Kumārila proved the more potent influence of the two both within the school and without. He attacks Buddhists frequently in his works; and tradition asserts that he used every means to discredit and weaken them wherever he went in his scholarly journeys, and that he invoked the civil power to persecute them. What the historical facts are, we cannot tell; but it is probable that strong action lies behind a tradition so widespread and persistent. His activity is to be explained as the first vigorous manifestation of the spirit of modern Hinduism. He represents the system which takes its stand on the authority of the Vedas and of the Brāhman priests, recognizes a mass of sects within that ample fence, and opposes every other system vehemently.

c10.t1.12

§ 191. It is of importance to observe that *mukti*, final release, appears in the system for the first time in Prabhākara and Kumārila. During the interval between Jaimini and these thinkers Release had become a matter of such moment to the Hindu mind that it could no longer be evaded. They teach that release is won when both dharma and adharma disappear, and that he who desires release should therefore perform only necessary duties.¹

c10.t1.13

¹ Jhā, PSPM. 83 ff.

c10.t1.14

§ 192. It is a most interesting fact that by the time of Kumārila’s activity, the ancient Vedic sacrificial system, which the Karma Mīmāṃsā expounds, was steadily decaying. Everywhere temple-worship and the presentation of offerings to images tended to take the place of the ancient ordinances, and the movement went on with increasing force after his day. Yet the Mīmāṃsā maintained its place, because it provided rules for the exposition of the Vedic literature, which all scholars required to use. Although the Karma Mīmāṃsā is the one system recognized by all Smārtas, the changes which have arisen in their practice seem to have left no trace in the system itself.

c10.t1.15

b. The Vedānta.

c10.t1.16

§ 193. The earliest surviving commentary on the Vedānta-sūtras is by the great Śaṅkara, who flourished in the first half of the ninth century; but there is abundance of evidence to show that a long line of writers and students of the Vedānta filled the centuries between the time of the sūtras and his day. We have already seen that three types of theory were current within the school before the sūtras were composed.² Various doctrines were also held after that event; for between the sūtras and Śaṅkara there were representatives both of the strict monism which he upholds and of the modified monism taught much later by Rāmānuja.³ One of the strict monists, Gauḍapāda by name, the teacher of Śaṅkara’s teacher, is the author of a very noteworthy poem, which is appended to the Māṇḍūkya U. and is known as the Māṇḍūkya Kārikā.⁴ So far as we know, he wrote no commentary on the sūtras, but his Kārikā has a very special interest for us as the earliest, or at least the earliest surviving, document of the school of monism and illusion. It is a work of genius, brilliant alike in conception and expression. Deussen¹ compares him to Parmenides. He also wrote commentaries on a number of Upanishads. He must have flourished about the middle of the eighth century. From information found in the works of Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja we are able to give the names of three writers earlier than Śaṅkara who taught theistic interpretation of the sūtras similar to Rāmānuja’s doctrine, namely Bodhāyana, author of a vṛtti, Taṅka, author of a vākya, and Drāmiḍa, author of a bhāshya on the sūtras.²

c10.t1.17

² § 145.

c10.t1.18

³ § 284.

c10.t1.19

⁴ Walleser, DAV., contends that the name Gauḍapāda is a mistake, that the writer’s name has not been handed down, and that Buddhist evidence proves that the Kārikā was already in existence by A. D. 550. Scholars are inclined to think that the balance of evidence is in favour of the personal name of the writer and of his connexion with Śaṅkara. Certainly the Buddhist evidence cited in favour of the early date of the Kārikā does not seem to be cogent. See Barnett, JRAS. 1910, p. 131 ff.; Jacobi, JAOS. xxxiii. 51, n. 1.

c10.t1.20

¹ SUV. 514.

c10.t1.21

² Thibaut, SBE. XXXIV. xx ff.

c10.t1.22

§ 194. Śaṅkara was the name assumed by a sannyāsī born at Kaladi in the north of Travancore, probably in A.D. 788. He became a brilliant scholar and produced a number of philosophical writings characterized by great intellectual capacity and an extremely fine style. He seems to have lived until about A.D. 850.³ He left bhāshyas on the Vedānta-sūtras, the Gītā and the chief Upanishads. Besides these, a number of Vedantic writings, mostly in verse, are attributed to him, the chief being the Upadeśa-sahasrī, a summary of his doctrine in verse. Until strictly scientific methods of comparison are applied to these works, it will be impossible to say how many are by Śaṅkara. The best scholars usually decide against them all. Numerous Śākta works in prose and verse also bear his name, but there can hardly be a doubt that they are not his offspring. About the Vedānta-sūtra-bhāshya fortunately there can be no question.

c10.t1.23

³ Macdonell, SL. 402; Keith, AA. 11. The date A.D. 805-97, proposed by S. V. Veṅkateśvara in JRAS. 1916, 151 ff., is scarcely likely to be right, in view of the date of Vāchaspati’s Bhāmatī.

c10.t1.24

§ 195. The following is a brief outline of his advaitavāda, pure monism. There exists only Brahman, one without a second, spiritual, unknowable. The material world is *Māyā*, illusion. The human soul is identical with Brahman: *Tat tvam asi*, ‘Thou art that.’ But this contradicts all experience, and man must live in his experience. Therefore Śaṅkara distinguishes between supreme truth and the truth of experience. Similarly, he recognizes not only God as he truly is under the name para Brahman, the supreme Brahman, but also the same being enwrapped in limitations and attributes as apara Brahman, the lower Brahman, who is the world-soul and a personal God. The whole of our lower knowledge, however, our ideas of the world, all our personal experience and our conception of ourselves as distinct personalities—all this is more truly described as ignorance than as knowledge. Liberation comes when a man rises from ignorance to true knowledge. This comes finally by the grace of God, but a man may prepare himself by study of the Veda and by the discipline of the Vedānta. Even after knowledge is attained, the man continues to live; but at death he receives final release: ‘Brahman he is and into Brahman he is resolved.’

c10.t1.25

It is noteworthy that Śaṅkara holds strongly that, while works may prepare the soul for the discipline of knowledge, they can never help the man to reach release, but necessarily bind him ever more firmly to transmigration. Hence, when a man becomes a sannyāsī of the Advaita Vedānta, he gives up sacrifices and the other duties of the ordinary Hindu completely, and seeks knowledge as the only means to release. This renunciation of the regular Hindu life is typified in the act of laying aside the sacred thread, which is part of the ceremony of initiation into the life of the sannyāsī.

c10.t1.26

§ 196. The striking resemblance which certain features of the teaching of Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara present to Mahāyāna philosophy led Hindu controversialists to assail it as ‘covert Buddhism;’¹ and some modern scholars have been inclined to say that its illusion and its doctrine of double truth have no foundation in the Upanishads and must have been drawn from the rival faith.¹ This contention is strengthened by the fact that there is no doctrine of illusion in the *Vedānta-sūtras*.² But scholarly opinion seems now inclined to conclude that, in the early Upanishads, there is unquestionably, along with other ideas, the basis for a doctrine of pure monism, and that we need go no farther afield than the *Śvetāśvatara U.* for the doctrine of *māyā*, but that Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara were probably influenced in some degree by the two philosophical systems of the Mahāyāna.³

c10.t1.27

¹ e. g. in the Padma P.

c10.t1.28

¹ e.g. Walleser, *DAV.* 22 ff.; also Dr. Jhā: see Keith, *JRAS.* 1916, 279 f.

c10.t1.29

² Thibaut, *SBE.* XXXIV. xci-xcvii; Keith, *SS.* 64.

c10.t1.30

³ Barnett, *JRAS.* 1910, 1364; Jacobi, *JAOS.* XXXIII. 151 ff.; Poussin, *JRAS.* 1910, 129 ff.; Keith, *JRAS.* 1916, 380.

c10.t1.31

§ 197. But there are other characteristics of the Bhāshya which are worthy of attention. Most of them have a basis in the sūtras but they are clearly worked out by Śaṅkara. All the main features of orthodox Hinduism are accepted and buttressed with arguments, e.g. the inspiration of the Purāṇas,⁴ the permanent presence of all the traditional gods, even though each is a transient being,⁵ the visibility of the gods to ṛishis in ancient time,⁶ the eating of the sacrifice by the gods,⁷ the assumption by a god of many bodies so as to be present at many sacrifices at one moment,⁸ &c. Thus the great philosophy, which began by holding the popular religion in contempt,⁹ has now become its willing servant.

c10.t1.32

⁴ Bhāshya on I. 3, 33; *SBE.* XXXIV. 222-3.

c10.t1.33

⁵ On I. 3, 28: Ib. 202-3.

c10.t1.34

⁶ On I. 3, 34: Ib. 222.

c10.t1.35

⁷ On III. 1, 7: *SBE.* XXXVIII. 110-1.

c10.t1.36

⁸ On I. 3, 27; *SBE.* XXXIV. 199-200.

c10.t1.37

⁹ See § 53.

c10.t1.38

It is clear that by Śaṅkara’s day the Upanishads, the *Gītā* and the *Vedānta-sūtras* were recognized as the fundamental scriptures of the Vedānta. At a later date they were called the *Prasthānatraya* or Triple Canon. Although the *Gītā* and the Sūtras are but *smṛiti*, they are regarded with almost as much veneration as the Upanishads, which are *śruti*.

c10.t1.39

Indian scholars frequently speak of Śaṅkara as one of the greatest of the world’s independent philosophic thinkers. The truth seems to be that he never questioned the truth of the basis of the Vedānta, i. e. those writings which were then recognized as revelation of the first grade, śruti. Yet within these theological limits Śaṅkara displays consummate philosophical capacity : he is the Thomas Aquinas of Hinduism.

c10.t1.40

§ 198. He seems to have been a man of organizing capacity as well as a thinker. Tradition avers that he found the ascetic orders of the Vedānta in disorder and regulated them, dividing them into ten groups, placing each under one of his disciples and naming them after these leaders. Certainly, the sannyāsīs of the Vedānta to-day are in ten groups, and are known as Daśnāmīs, i. e. sannyāsīs of ten names, and they unanimously ascribe their constitution and rule to Śaṅkara.¹ There are also sannyāsinīs. A company of them whom I saw at the Khumbh Mela at Allahabad in 1918 belonged to the Giri order. He also founded four monasteries, to form centres of advaita learning and influence, Śṛingerī in Mysore, Govardhana in Purī, Śāradā ² in Dwārkā, and Joshi at Badarināth in the Himalayas. All four have survived to our day, and there are a number of subordinate houses. Śṛingerī, of which he was himself the head, is the chief monastery, and its ruler is the supreme Pontiff of all advaita sannyāsīs.

c10.t1.41

¹ The ten names are: 1. Tīrtha, 2. Āśrama, 3. Sarasvatī, 4. Bhāratī, 5. Vana, 6. Araṇya, 7. Pārvata, 8. Sāgara, 9. Giri, 10. Purī. Only the first three are pure, i. e. restricted to twice-born men, or rather to Brāhmans; for Kshatriyas and Vaiśyas are negligible. Half of the Bhāratī order is also said to be pure. The other six are open to the four castes, but to no others. One often hears the phrase Śaṅkara’s Daṇḍīs also: these are the innermost group of all; for only a Brāhman can receive a daṇḍa, i. e. a bamboo rod; and the ceremonial which attaches to it is so troublesome that many prefer to do without it. Many of the Daśnāmīs have discarded clothing, and are called Nāgās (from Nagna, ‘naked’). There were hundreds of them at the Kumbh Mela of 1918.

c10.t1.42

² The goddess Sarasvatī as patroness of the sciences and speech is called Śāradā, and has five faces and ten arms: Kṛishna Śāstrī, SII. 187. Tradition runs that to her grace Śaṅkara attributed his powers. To this day the incumbent of Śṛingerī, whether in the monastery or on tour, publicly worships a large number of idols, Śāradā amongst them towering high above the rest. For this reason some scholars say Śaṅkara was a Śākta.

c10.t1.43

§ 199. Śaṅkara made many tours through India, and proved a triumphant controversialist, if we may trust the traditions of his school; and, certainly, the extraordinary influence which his teaching had in many parts of India in the following centuries forms the best corroboration of the claim. Thus, it is clear that the whole vast body of Smārta householders in the South and in Gujarāt, and many also throughout the North, became his disciples, and recognized him as their religious head. To this day the superior of the monastery in Śr̥ingerī, who always bears the honoured name, Śaṅkara, is Pontiff, not only of all advaita sannyāsīs, but of all the Smārtas of the South and the West as well. Hence the immense influence which the Śaṅkara wields, and the wealth which flows into the monastery. This connexion sheds light on Śaṅkara’s acceptance and defence of the main positions of orthodox Hinduism in his *Bhāshya*.

c10.t1.44

But his teaching produced large results outside the immediate circle of his pledged disciples. The Bhāgavatas¹ in every part of the country, a Ramaite sect,² which can be traced in the literature, and which ought in all probability to be located in the South, and, at the other extremity of India, the Śaivas of Kashmir,³ all fell under the spell of his philosophy, and taught it, in purity or with modifications, for centuries.

c10.t1.45

¹ See § 210.

c10.t1.46

² See § 219.

c10.t1.47

³ See § 230.

c10.t1.48

§ 200. There are also widespread traditions⁴ to the effect that he persecuted the Buddhists and the Jains and destroyed their books, and cleansed the worship of a number of disreputable Hindu sects. To one who for the first time reads the *Bhāshya* these late stories may well seem foolish inventions; nor can any one accept them as they stand; yet his connexions with orthodox householders give a certain plausibility to the statements. He may possibly have originated the Right-hand movement among Śāktas.⁵

c10.t1.49

⁴ The two *Śaṅkara-vijayas* are clearly far from historical, yet they reflect tradition, portions of which may be in the main true. The work attributed to Mādhava must have been written after that scholar’s death; and both seem to have been provoked by the *Maṇimañjarī* and the *Madhvavijaya*: Krishnasamy Aiyar, 3; and see § 279.

c10.t1.50

⁵ See § 317.

c10.t1.51

There are some Hindu scholars who say that he originated and enforced the Smārta rule of worshipping the five gods,¹ but there is no evidence in support of the assertion.

c10.t1.52

¹ See § 207.

c10.t1.53

§ 201. The next outstanding writer on the Vedānta is Vāchaspati Miśra, who occupies a very noticeable position. He tells us himself that he belonged to Tirhut and that he lived under a king named Nṛiga; and in one of his books, the Nyāyasūchīnibandha, he gives A. D. 841 as the year in which it was written.² His home and his date are thus known. He was a Smārta Brāhman, and must have been a very capable teacher of philosophy. He left seven books, all expository works, which set forth, in clear and accurate philosophic language, five out of the six orthodox philosophies of Hinduism, the Vaiśeshika being the only one of the six he did not expound. He is thus a very striking figure. Every scholar before his date is a controversialist, upholding his own school against all comers, and fighting the teaching of every other school. Vāchaspati, on the other hand, knows no bias: he is simply an honest expositor of real philosophic grasp and great power of accurate expression. His books have therefore been greatly admired and widely used as text-books since his day. He wrote a commentary, the Bhāmatī, on Śaṅkara’s Bhāshya which has been the most popular and useful of all the innumerable works written to expound that masterpiece, and has been interpreted in turn by many scholiasts.

c10.t1.54

² Woods, Yoga, xxiii.

c10.t1.55

c. The Sāṅkhya.

c10.t1.56

§ 202. The Sāṅkhya-kārikā, which, soon after it was written, was honoured by an attack from the great Vasubandhu, was translated into Chinese in the sixth century by a Buddhist monk.³ Probably a little later, a scholar named Gauḍapāda (seemingly not the same as Śaṅkara’s paramaguru)⁴ wrote the Sāṅkhya-kārikā-bhāshya, which is of considerable importance in determining the precise meaning of the principles summarized in the stanzas. Then about A. D. 850 Vāchaspati produced his *Sāṅkhya-tattva-kaumudī*, an exposition of the *Kārikā*, which is regarded as one of the most authoritative of Sāṅkhya works, and has been expounded in many super-commentaries.

c10.t1.57

³ Nanjio, 1300. Cf. Takakusu, BEFEO. IV. 1.

c10.t1.58

⁴ Jacobi, JAOS. XXXIII. 52, n. 2; Keith, JRAS. 1916, 171; SS. 87.

c10.t1.59

§ 203. There is a similar story to tell of the Yoga. A *Bhāshya* on the *Yoga-sūtra* was written some time after A. D. 650 by an unknown writer, and Vāchaspati wrote the *Tattva-Vaiśāradī*, also an exposition of the *Sūtra*, about A. D. 850. Woods remarks:¹

c10.t1.60

¹ Yoga, ix.

c10.t1.61

The *Bhāshya* and, still more, the *Tattva-Vaiśāradī* are masterpieces of the philosophical style. They are far from being a loosely collected body of glosses. Their excessively abbreviated and disconnected order of words is intentional.

c10.t1.62

It is very noticeable that the fresh developments in Yoga theory and practice reflected in the Tantras, Āgamas, and Saṃhitās do not seem to have produced the slightest effect on the ancient school.

c10.t1.63

*e. The Vaiśeshika.*

c10.t1.64

§ 204. There is only one Vaiśeshika writer to be mentioned, Praśastapāda, whose date is in the neighbourhood of A. D. 600, and without whose *Bhāshya* the *Vaiśeshika-sūtras* would be almost unintelligible. But another work, the original of which is lost, survives in a translation: in A. D. 648 the pilgrim, Hiouen Tsang, translated the *Daśapadārtha*, said to be by Jñānachandra, into Chinese.

c10.t1.65

*f. The Nyāya.*

c10.t1.66

§ 205. The preceding chapter has shown that Vātsyāyana’s *Bhāshya*, which lights up the obscurity of the *Nyāya-sūtras*, belongs to the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century. To that we now add Uddyotakara’s *Nyāya-vārtika*, on the *Bhāshya*, and Vāchaspati’s *Nyāya-vārtika-tātparya-ṭīkā*, the former from about A. D. 650, the latter from about 840.

c10.t1.67

On these two closely related schools two significant facts require to be chronicled here. First, with Praśastapāda, the atomic school becomes frankly theistic, and about the same time both schools become closely connected with the Pāśupata sect.¹ Secondly, the question has been seriously raised, whether the new doctrine of inference called *vyāpti*, which appears in Indian logical treatises at this time, is not due to the influence of the Aristotelian logic.²

c10.t1.68

¹ Keith, *JRAS.* 1914, 1097.

c10.t1.69

² Ib. 1096.

c10.t1.70

The study of logic in early India was greatly enriched by the labours of numerous Buddhist and Jain thinkers. Of all these scholars the most influential by far was the Buddhist Dignāga, who flourished before the middle of the sixth century; but the first Jain logician, Siddhasena Divākara, lived probably a century earlier, and later Jain thinkers did good service.³

c10.t1.71

³ Vidyābhūshaṇa, *MSIL.* 22-55; 80.

B. The Purāṇas.

c10.t2.1

§ 206. All the Purāṇas, except the *Bhāgavata*, seem to have been in existence by the end of this period, and probably earlier. It is also probable that there was an authoritative list of the eighteen, in which both the *Śiva* and the *Vāyu* would have a place. But, though the eighteen existed then, all were not in the condition in which they are to-day. Numerous sections, khaṇḍas, saṃhitās, and such like have since then been foisted on the original texts, and large portions of the originals have been lost, either through accident or deliberate sectarian malice.

c10.t2.2

The *Garuda P.* is clearly a manual compiled for the use of Smārta priests; for it contains detailed instructions for the worship of the five gods, and gives information in many other subjects which a practising priest would want to have. The Agni is also a Smārta document; for it gives detailed instructions about the worship of the five gods;¹ but it may be meant for the use of Bhāgavata priests;² for it gives far more attention to Viṣṇu than to the other four, it contains a list of Pāñcharātra Saṃhitās,³ which is possible in a Bhāgavata, but not in a purely Smārta work, and it uses the Bhāgavata mantra at several points.⁴ Both Purāṇas show very distinctly the influence of the Śākta teaching given in the Āgamas, Tantras, and Saṃhitās. Of the original character of the Nārada, Varāha, Vāmana, and Brahmavaivarta Purāṇas it is hard to speak with certainty, but all seem to have contained Vaiṣṇava material.⁵ The Śiva, Liṅga, and Kūrma Purāṇas are all Śaiva in general character, and all three⁶ contain copies of certain parts of the Lakulīśa-Pāśupata material which seems to have appeared first in the Vāyu.⁷ The Skanda⁸ it is not possible to speak with certainty.

c10.t2.3

⁴ Chaps. 16; 17; 22-24; 28-40; 42.

c10.t2.4

¹ Chaps. 21; 23; 69; 71; 73; 74.

c10.t2.5

² Bhāgavatas often act as archakas.

c10.t2.6

³ Chap. 39.

c10.t2.7

⁴ e. g. in chaps. 27 and 48.

c10.t2.8

⁵ See the quotations in Madhva's Brahma-sūtra-bhāshya.

c10.t2.9

⁶ Śiva, Uttarārdha, IX, ix; Liṅga, VII; Kūrma, LII.

c10.t2.10

⁷ See § 165.

c10.t2.11

⁸ But see H. P. Śāstrī, I. lii.

C. Smārtas and their Literature.

c10.t3.1

§ 207. At an early date some organizing genius persuaded the Smārtas to make it a regular practice to worship the five gods, pañcha deva, Viṣṇu, Śiva, Durgā, Sūrya, Gaṇeśa, in what is called Pañchāyatana Pūjā,⁹ but the precise time and the name of the organizer are unknown. Many Smārtas say that it was Śaṅkara who imposed the rule; some say Kumārila; while others say the practice is of still earlier origin. But what is clear from the list itself is that the rule was formed at a time when Brahmā had already fallen into the background, and the five gods were prominent. The evidence contained in this chapter makes it probable that that was true by the opening of the seventh century; but it is impossible to give anything like a definite date. It is also essential to notice that the five are merely a pañchāyat representing all the gods: the orthodox man recognizes the whole pantheon; and, while he worships the five, he may worship as many more as he likes. Towards the end of this period five Upanishads, one on each of the divinities, were put together and called the Atharvaśiras U.¹ They are doubtless all founded on sectarian Upanishads.

c10.t3.2

⁹ That is, ‘Five-Shrines Worship’. The methods of the worship as practised to-day explain the name. See § 352. For the word see Jacob, EAU. 171.

c10.t3.3

¹ Weber, HIL. 170; Kennedy, HM. 346, &c.

c10.t3.4

§ 208. It will be at once recognized that Śaṅkara’s philosophical position fits the Smārta conception of the pantheon perfectly. From the point of view of religious practice, the only difference between the advaita Vedānta and the Karma Mīmāmsā lies in the recognition of the Absolute behind all the gods. Thus it is not at all strange that Śaṅkara won over a large number of Smārtas to the acceptance of his system. To this day, in most parts of South India and Gujarāt, the word Smārta implies allegiance to Śaṅkara as well as to the five gods and to Vedic observance.

c10.t3.5

§ 209. For the twice-born the most interesting literature published during the period would be the law-books and the works on the Mīmāmsā. The Nārada and the Bṛihaspati are the chief legal smṛitis produced at this time, but there were many others. The publication of the great works of Prabhākara and Kumārila on the Karma Mīmāmsā would be of great interest to all Śrautas and Smārtas. Both these writers, and many other notable scholars of the period, Praśastapāda, Vātsyāyana, Udyotakara, and Vāchaspati Miśra were either Śrautas or Smārtas. The Garuḍa P.² seems to be a manual written for Smārta priests.

c10.t3.6

² See § 206.

D. Vaishṇava Literature.

c10.t4.1

a. Bhāgavata Literature.

c10.t4.2

§ 210. It seems clear that the Bhāgavatas followed the Smārtas in the two steps we have just dealt with: they accepted the worship of the five gods and the advaita Vedānta. Yet it seems as if their acceptance of the five gods had been less serious than their recognition of Śiva as equivalent to Vishṇu: so much seems to be implied in the practice of the sect to-day. Probably about the end of this period, after the adoption of Śaṅkara’s system, some Bhāgavata scholar wrote the Skanda U.,¹ to establish the truth of the doctrine of the identity of Vishṇu and Śiva. The philosophy is advaita, and the classical passage in the Harivaṁśa on the subject is utilized. A Bhāgavata S.² is mentioned among the Vaishṇava Saṁhitās, which may be a Bhāgavata document.

c10.t4.3

¹ Jacob, EAU. 15.

c10.t4.4

² No. 105 in Schrader’s list, IPAS. 8.

c10.t4.5

§ 211. Many Bhāgavatas are temple ministrants in South India to-day, and there is evidence which tends to suggest that in early times still larger numbers performed that service. The Agni P. seems to be a manual prepared for the use of Bhāgavata priests, as is suggested above.³ In the Tamil country to-day, while in most temples the ritual is conducted in accordance with the rules laid down in the Pāñcharātra Saṁhitās, there are a few temples in which Vaikhānasa Saṁhitās are used. This is true of the shrine of Veṅkaṭeśvara on Tirupati hill, and of the temples in Conjeeveram, and Śrīperumbudur. What the age of these Saṁhitās may be, is not yet known. They differ from the main group first of all in points of ritual. But there is a far more serious distinction: Appaya Dīkshita tells us that Vaikhānasa manuals are consistent with Vedic usage while Pāñcharātra Saṁhitās are unorthodox.⁴ Now, it is clear that in the temple of Veṅkaṭeśvara, in which the Vaikhānasa ritual is followed to this day, Śiva and Vishṇu were worshipped as equal until Rāmānuja interfered.¹ Thus we can scarcely be wrong in concluding that the Vaikhānasa Saṃhitās have for centuries been used by Bhāgavata archakas ² for the ritual. It also seems clear that there were many more temples in which Viṣṇu and Śiva were adored as equal—i. e. Bhāgavata shrines—during this period than there are to-day; for many such temples are mentioned in the hymns of the Āḻvārs ³; and we know that Rāmānuja sought to substitute Pāñcharātra for Vaikhānasa ritual wherever he went. What is the relation between these manuals and the Vaikhānasa-sūtras ? ⁴

c10.t4.6

³ § 206.

c10.t4.7

⁴ See the passage quoted by Chanda, IAR. 100.

c10.t4.8

¹ Govindāchārya, R. 142.

c10.t4.9

² I. e. temple-ministrants.

c10.t4.10

³ Kṛiṣhṇa Śāstrī, SII. 12.

c10.t4.11

⁴ See § 160.

c10.t4.12

b. Pāñcharātra Literature.

c10.t4.13

§ 212. The rise of the Vaiṣṇava, or Pāñcharātra, Saṃhitās ⁵ is the most notable fact in the Viṣṇuite history of the period, but it is not yet possible to state with certainty when or where they were written. They can be traced in Kashmir in the tenth century, in the Tamil country in the eleventh,⁶ and at later dates in South Kanara,⁷ but clear references at earlier dates are still lacking. The utmost we can say is that their striking similarity to the Śaiva Āgamas and to the early Tāntrik literature, both Hindu and Buddhist, suggests that the earliest of them arose about the same time as these three literatures, i. e. probably between A. D. 600 and 800, and that—there is nothing in the general character of the books that is opposed to such a date. More precise evidence may become available any day.⁸

c10.t4.14

⁵ In this connexion I am much indebted to Dr. Schrader's excellent monograph, Introduction to the Pāñcharātra and the Ahirbudhnya Saṃhitā; also to Govindāchārya's art. JRAS. 1911, 935 ff.; and to the relevant section in Iyengar's Outlines.

c10.t4.15

⁶ Schrader, IPAS. 17 f.

c10.t4.16

⁷ In Madhva's Bhāshya on the Vedānta-sūtras.

c10.t4.17

⁸ A careful survey of Vaiṣṇava Tamil literature would likely provide some evidence. Śaṅkara's statement about Śāṇḍilya, Bhāshya, II. ii. 45, in all probability rests on a Saṃhitā.

c10.t4.18

The Saṃhitās are supposed to number 108; but about double that number of names are known. Lists occur in four Samhitās, three containing over 100 names each, the fourth containing only 34. Taking the three long lists first, 52 names are common; taking all four, only 11 are common. The results are thus rather hazy. Further, these books have suffered from interpolation in precisely the same way as the Purāṇas. Hence, it is not strange that the few scholars who have given some time to their study do not agree in their conclusions as to which are the earliest documents.¹

c10.t4.19

¹ Schrader (IPAS. 20) takes the Paushkara, Vārāha, and Brāhma as the earliest of all, while Iyengar (Outlines, 175) regards the Lakshmī as ‘decidedly very old’, and says that the Padma is ‘perhaps the oldest’ of all. With this latter judgement my friend, Mr. A. Govindāchārya Svāmin of Mysore city, agrees.

c10.t4.20

§ 213. It is probably true that each Samhitā, even in its earliest form, represented some sectarian division or some variety of doctrine or worship. Thus one of the Agastya Samhitās is a Ramaite work; it is probable that the Narasimha sprang from the special cult of the Narasimha incarnation, which we deal with elsewhere; and the Dattātreya, the Gaṇeśa, and the Saura may reflect the worship of Dattātreya, Gaṇeśa, and the Sun. That later developments are reflected in the Samhitā literature is plain. Rāmānuja’s stay at Melkote is described in several works; while Mādhva doctrine obtrudes itself distinctly in others. The literature will not be fully intelligible until these sectarian distinctions are realized. Schrader holds that most of the literature was produced in the north, but believes that several of the works belong to the Tamil south, notably Īśvara, Upendra, and Bṛihad Brāhma.² He may be right, but, on the other hand, these may be northern works interpolated in the south.

c10.t4.21

² IPAS. 16 f.

c10.t4.22

§ 214. The Samhitās are historically noteworthy in two ways. They mark first the emergence of Śākta principles in the Vaishṇava sect. But they are also notable as being the first manuals formed to express both the beliefs and the practice of Vaishṇavas. In the matter of practice they are as it were the Kalpasūtras of the Vaishṇavas.³ Like the Śaiva Āgamas, the Saṃhitās are said to consist of four sections:

c10.t4.23

³ Govindāchārya, JRAS. 1911, 940.

c10.t4.24

*Jñāna-pāda*: philosophical theology. *Yoga-pāda*: the new yoga teaching and practice. *Kriyā-pāda*: the building of temples and the making of images. *Charyā-pāda*: religious practice.

c10.t4.25

Only two Saṃhitās, however, are known which are actually divided in this way, the *Padma* and the *Viṣṇutattva*. Even those which deal with all the four categories are arranged in other ways; and many deal only with Kriyā and Charyā. Indeed a very large part of all the material of the Saṃhitās deals with practice. This explains why they were so long kept secret.

c10.t4.26

§ 215. The theology of the chief Saṃhitās is essentially a development of the teaching of the Nārāyaṇīya episode of the Epic with the addition of a considerable Śākta element. The basis of the philosophy is the theistic Yoga. Our brief outline of the teaching is taken from Dr. Schrader’s excellent analysis:—In the supreme state Viṣṇu and his Śakti¹ are one Paramātman without distinction. It is in creation that they become distinguishable. Primary Creation falls into two stages, and Secondary Creation, which takes place 36,000 times between two Primary Creations, also falls into two.

c10.t4.27

¹ See § 168.

c10.t4.28

A. In the first stage of Primary Creation the Śakti awakes as if from sleep in her two aspects, *kriyā*, action, and *bhūti*, becoming, and manifests the six *guṇa*, i.e. attributes, of her Lord, viz. knowledge, unrestricted power, energy, strength, virility, splendour. These six together constitute Vāsudeva, the first vyūha², and his śakti Lakshmī. The six fall into pairs, and from them emanate in order Saṃkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha, the second, third, and fourth vyūhas, and their Śaktis. From the vyūhas proceed twelve sub-vyūhas and twelve Vidyeśvaras. In this stage of creation are produced also the vibhavas, or incarnations of Viṣṇu, thirty-nine in number, and Vaikuṇṭha, Highest Heaven, with all its dwellers.

c10.t4.29

² See § 106.

c10.t4.30

B. In the second stage of Primary Creation the bhūti aspect of the Śakti is manifested in the grosser forms, Kūṭastha Puruṣa and Māyā Śakti. The Kūṭastha Puruṣa is the aggregate of individual souls, massed together like bees, while the Māyā is the immaterial source of the universe. From her is produced Niyata, the regulator of all things; from Niyata Kāla, transcendental Time, regarded as a driving force; and from Kāla the Guṇa-body, whence the three Sankhyan guṇas emanate and coalesce into Mūlaprakṛti, the impalpable source of material things. All these creations remain in existence from the time they are created until the time of Universal Dissolution, Mahāpralaya.

c10.t4.31

C. The first stage of each Secondary Creation corresponds very closely with the Sankhyan evolution. Yet there are differences; the Vaiṣṇava system starts not only with the Mūlaprakṛti and Puruṣa but with Kāla also, and the Puruṣa is the one Kūṭastha Puruṣa instead of an infinite number of souls. The other differences need not detain us.

c10.t4.32

D. The five gross elements, ether, air, light, water, and earth, having been produced, coalesce into a mass, and the world-egg, with the creator god, Brahmā, the fifth vyūha, in it, is produced, or, according to certain Saṃhitās, innumerable world-eggs; and thereafter there come the details of creation.

c10.t4.33

Souls are of four classes, the liberated, those fit for liberation, the ever-bound, and those fit for darkness. Predestination is thus clearly taught. A soul reaches knowlege and liberation by the grace of the Lord, and he is not merged in him but joins him in Vaikuṇṭha. A few Saṃhitās are so advaitic in tone as to approach the idea of the absolute identity of the soul and God, but the general teaching clearly recognizes the soul as distinct. The soul is atomic in size, but when liberated is omniscient and in a sense also omnipotent and omnipresent.

c10.t4.34

The doctrine of the channels and centres of occult force in the human body with its method of Yoga practice and miraculous results, which we describe below¹ as found in the Śākta system, appears in the same form in these Vaiṣṇava works.² The doctrines of mantra and yantra in the Saṃhitās are indistinguishable from the Śākta teaching described below.³ Magic in all its forms, with innumerable spells and rites and talismans, is carefully described and eagerly commended. The great sectarian mantras, *Oṃ namo Bhāgavate Vāsudevāya* (Bhāgavata), *Oṃ namo Nārāyaṇāya* (Śrī-Vaiṣṇava), and the famous mantra of Narasimha are all adored and studied and expounded in a thousand ways. The sect-mark of the Śrī-Vaiṣṇavas of South India consists of two white curving lines, like the outline of a vase, and a single red vertical line set in the centre and meeting the white lines at the base. The white lines represent Viṣṇu, the red line his śakti, in accordance with the Śākta doctrine of creation. The Saṃhitās ordain that Vaiṣṇavas shall not only paint the sect-mark on the brow and elsewhere, but shall also brand the symbols of Viṣṇu on the body with red-hot irons. The twice-born Vaiṣṇava is expected to select a guru and receive initiation, *dīkṣā*, from him. Initiation consists of five acts, *Tāpa*, branding the symbols on the body, *Puṇḍra*, painting the sect-mark, *Nāma*, taking a name, *Mantra*, reception of the formula of adoration, *Yāga*, worship.⁴ There is nothing in Vaiṣṇavism that corresponds with *chakra-pūjā*,⁵ and only vegetarian offerings are allowed in the temples. The strict Vaiṣṇava uses only vegetarian diet. The Pāñcharātra system is still unorthodox in these manuals,⁶ as we found it to be in the Epic.

c10.t4.35

¹ See § 232.

c10.t4.36

² Schrader, *IPAS.* 118 ff.

c10.t4.37

³ § 232.

c10.t4.38

⁴ Govindāchārya, *JRAS.* 1911, 946.

c10.t4.39

⁵ See § 234.

c10.t4.40

⁶ Schrader, *IPAS.* 97.

c10.t4.41

The religion of the Saṃhitās is open to all four Hindu castes without distinction, but not to outcastes. The position of the Gītā¹ in this matter is retained.

c10.t4.42

¹ § 88.

c10.t4.43

§ 216. In the Tamil south, alongside of the Pāñcharātra manuals, about a dozen Saṃhitās are found, which are called Vaikhānasa. They are discussed above.²

c10.t4.44

² § 211.

c10.t4.45

We now deal briefly with the few local groups or sub-sects which can be distinguished at this stage in Vaishṇava history.

c10.t4.46

1. Tamil Vaishṇavas.

c10.t4.47

§ 217. We begin with the Tamil country. From the seventh to the tenth century there seems to have been a succession of poet-singers in Tamil-land who wandered about from shrine to shrine, composing hymns and singing in ecstasy before the images of their loved divinity. Many were Śaivas, and many were Vaishṇavas. Of the latter twelve are specially remembered, and honoured under the title of Āḷvārs. Their religion was above all a passionate emotion. Their chief joy was to gaze into the divine eyes of a favourite image, and to pour out their praises in music and song. Often, after a long absence, the poet's feeling was too much for him, and he fell unconscious on the temple-floor before the image, stunned by the flood of his emotions, or, during the night, he would fall sick with longing for the beautiful face which he could not see until the temple-doors were opened in the morning. They taught Outcastes, and some of them are said to have been Outcastes. Apart from local legends and epithets suggested by the temples or the forms of the images, their poems show only the influence of the Epics and early Purāṇas. The Saṃhitās were probably late in penetrating to the Tamil south. Yet these men have been regarded as the teachers of the Śrī-Vaishṇava sect. Their hymns have a great and honoured place in the training of scholars and in public worship, and their images are worshipped in the temples. The following is the list of their names in the traditional order of their appearance :—1. Poygaiar, 2. Bhutattu, 3. Peyar, 4. Tirumalisai, 5. Śaṭhakopa or Nammāḷvār, 6. Madhurakavi, 7. Kulaśekhar, 8. Periyar, 9. Andal, 10. Tondarippodi, 11. Tiruppanar, 12. Tirumangai. One of these, Andal, was a woman. Tirumangai and Nammāḷvār are the greatest, and Nammāḷvār is the most famous of all. There is no certainty yet as to the chronology of the Āḷvārs. Barnett¹ suggests that Tirumangai and Nammāḷvār belong to the eighth century or thereabouts, but other dates are proposed by other scholars.²

c10.t4.48

¹ BMCTB. 7.

c10.t4.49

² K. Aiyangar, AI. 220, 377; S. Aiyangar, TS. 299.

c10.t4.50

There are two Upanishads which probably belong to this period, and which are both devoted to the Nārāyaṇa-mantra, *Om namo Nārāyaṇāya*, namely the *Nārāyaṇa* and the *Ātma-bodha* Upanishads.³ The Śrī-Vaishṇava sect, which took definite shape among Tamil Vaishṇavas during the next period, use this formula as their sect-mantra. Thus the Upanishads are probably connected with the sect.

c10.t4.51

³ Deussen, SUV. 747 ff.

c10.t4.52

2. The Narasimha Sect.

c10.t4.53

§ 218. The date of the *Nṛisimha-tāpanīya* Upanishads⁴ makes it plain that the Nṛisimha, or Narasimha, sect which worshipped the Man-lion incarnation of Vishṇu, must have been organized, at the latest, quite early in this period. This god is recognized all over India, but traces of his worship are far more abundant in the south than the north; and he is still the family god of many families in the south. Yet we must not assume that the sect was founded in the south. The sectarian mantra is an *anushṭubh* verse, called the royal mantra, *mantrarāja*, of Nṛisimha, and it is accompanied by four ancillary mantras. The chief scripture of the sect is the pair of Upanishads already mentioned. The first, called the Nṛsiṃha-pūrva-tāpanīya, is in two parts, the first of which glorifies the royal mantra by mystic identifications and interpretations, and also the four Aṅga mantras, while the second gives directions for the making, by means of the royal mantra of Nṛsiṃha and three other famous Vaiṣṇava mantras, of a diagram, yantra, which, worn on the neck, the arm, or in a lock of hair, will prove a potent amulet. The second Upanishad, called the Nṛsiṃha-uttara-tāpanīya, also encourages the cult of the royal mantra, but its emphasis falls on the sectarian theology, in which Nṛsiṃha is identified with the supreme Brahman, the Ātman, and the syllable Om. Both Upanishads were expounded by Gauḍapāda, and the first at least by Śaṅkara. The use of the famous mantrarāja was not confined to the sect; three chapters are devoted to its exposition in the Ahirbudhnya S.¹ The popularity of the Nṛsiṃha Upanishads led to their being imitated in other sects; the most noteworthy of these copies are the Rāma, Gaṇapati, Gopāla, and Tripurā Tāpanīya Upanishads.² There are two other documents belonging to the sect which in all probability come from this period, the Nṛsiṃha Upapurāṇa,³ and the Nṛsiṃha S.⁴ The former is mentioned by Alberuni in A.D. 1030,⁵ so that it almost certainly belongs to the period, but there is more doubt about the latter, as the earliest known reference to it is in Vedānta Deśika of the fourteenth century.

c10.t4.54

⁴ As they were expounded by Gauḍapāda about A.D. 750 or rather later, they cannot be dated later than the seventh century. See Deussen, SUV. 752 ff.

c10.t4.55

¹ Chaps. 54 to 56. See Schrader, IPAS. 143.

c10.t4.56

² See § 219; § 239; § 280; § 316.

c10.t4.57

³ Eggeling, SMIO. 3515.

c10.t4.58

⁴ Schrader, IPAS. 8, 18.

c10.t4.59

⁵ Sachau, I. 130.

c10.t4.60

3. The Rāma Sect.

c10.t4.61

§ 219. In a late interpolated passage in Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa,⁶ Rāma is hailed as the one eternal God, and his devotees are mentioned, but there is no evidence that an organized Ramaite sect existed in those early days. But there need be no doubt about the existence of such a sect in this period. It is implied in the Rāma-pūrva-tāpanīya Upanishad,¹ which sets Rāma forth as an incarnation of Brahman, expounds a royal mantra—Rāma Rāmāya namaḥ—and describes a mystic diagram which leads to release and other blessings. A secret alphabet is also taught as the vehicle of secret mantras. The Rāma-uttara-tāpanīya Upanishad² consists mostly of passages taken from earlier Upanishads, and may belong to a later date. One of the Vaishṇava Saṃhitās, the Agastya-Sutīkṣṇa Saṃvāda,³ is a Ramaite work, and almost certainly belongs to this period; for it is referred to and quoted in the Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa.⁴ Dr. Schrader’s assumption that the worship of Rāma is a modern growth, and that a Ramaite Saṃhitā must therefore be a very recent production, is unfounded, for there is plenty of evidence that Rāma has been continuously worshipped from very early times. But until this and other Saṃhitās bearing Ramaite names⁵ are carefully examined, the question of their date must remain in doubt.

c10.t4.62

⁶ VI. 119: see § 107.

c10.t4.63

¹ Deussen, *SUV.* 802.

c10.t4.64

² Ib. 818.

c10.t4.65

³ Schrader, *IPAS.* 6, 19.

c10.t4.66

⁴ See § 294.

c10.t4.67

⁵ Schrader, *IPAS.* nos. 26, 101, 133 in list, pp. 6 to 9.

c10.t4.68

§ 220. We may also reasonably ask whether there was not a Dattātreya sect. This seems to be implied by what is contained in the Yādava-giri Māhātmya in the Nārada and Matsya Purāṇas, by various references elsewhere to Dattātreya, and by what the Manbhaus say.

E. Śaiva Literature.

c10.t5.1

§ 221. It is not yet possible to say definitely how many Śaiva sects used or produced Āgamas. One is inclined to suggest, very tentatively, a division of mediaeval Śaivas into two groups as under:—

c10.t5.2

| *a.* Pāśupata Śaivas | 1. Pāśupatas. 2. Lakulīśa-Pāśupatas. 3. Kāpālikas. 4. Nāthas. 5. Gorakṣanāthīs. 6. Raseśvaras. |

c10.t5.3

{
1. Sanskrit School of Śaiva Siddhānta.
2. Tamil Śaivas.
3. Kashmir Śaivas.
4. Vīra Śaivas. }

c10.t5.4

It is clear that the second group were closely allied, and that they accepted the Āgamas. The Tamil and Vīra Śaivas call themselves Maheśvaras to-day and do not call themselves Pāśupatas, although their theology depends on the Pāśupata doctrine of the Epic. Their writers reject the doctrine of the incarnations of Śiva as taught by the Pāśupatas, and tell, instead, stories of his having appeared in numerous theophanies. The first group were also closely connected in several ways, and they do not seem to have recognized the Āgamas; but as only weak remnants of them have survived until our days, it is difficult to get clear information. We now deal with the sects as far as we can trace them.

c10.t5.5

a. Pāśupata Śaivas.

c10.t5.6

§ 222. There is first the parent sect of Pāśupatas. Praśastapāda, the early commentator on the Vaiśeṣika-sūtra, was a Śaiva, and almost certainly a Pāśupata, and Bharadvāja, i. e. Uddyotakara, the author of the gloss on the Nyāya-bhāṣya, is definitely called Pāśupatācārya. Bāṇa and Hiouen Tsang both refer to the Pāśupatas as one of the prominent sects of the time. Śaṅkara criticizes them in his Bhāṣya, on the ground that their doctrine of God as the operative but not the material cause of the world stands in opposition to Upanishad doctrine.

c10.t5.7

1. The Lakulīśas.

c10.t5.8

§ 223. The Lakulīśa system, which seems to be a specialized form of the Pāśupata,¹ arose in Gujarāt, as we have seen, at a very early date, and probably developed a philosophical literature before the opening of the seventh century. Consequently they did not accept the new teaching of the Śaiva Āgamas. During this period the sect spread as far south as Mysore and also into Rajputana. The lists of the incarnations of Śiva, which are copied in the *Liṅga* and *Kūrma Purāṇas* from the *Vāyu*, and which mention Lakulī, are Lakulīśa documents.¹ There is an image of Lakulīśa, which belongs to the seventh century, at Jharapatan in Gujarāt.

c10.t5.9

¹ Bhandarkar believes there is but the one system, called indifferently Pāśupata, Lakulīśa, or Lakulīśa-Pāśupata.

c10.t5.10

¹ See § 227.

c10.t5.11

2. The Kāpālikas.

c10.t5.12

§ 224. The Kāpālikas, i.e. the skull-men, are another specialization of the Pāśupatas, but it is hard to say whether they were ever a sect. The evidence suggests that they have never been more than an order of ascetics. In doctrine and practice they stand in the closest possible relation to the Left-hand Śāktas. They seem to have been organized about the very beginning of this period. An inscription,² dating from the first half of the seventh century, mentions the god Kapāleśvara and his ascetics. In the *Mālatī-Mādhava*, a drama produced early in the eighth century,³ one of the chief characters is Aghoraghaṇṭa, a Kāpālika ascetic, who acts as priest of the goddess Chāmuṇḍā in a royal city, and is connected with the great Śaiva shrine, Śrī-Śaila, in the Telugu country. Kapāla-Kuṇḍalā, i.e. Skull-earring, is a nun, a devotee of the goddess, and a pupil of Aghoraghaṇṭa. Both practise yoga, and through it have won miraculous powers. The beliefs they hold are full of Śākta ideas, and amongst their practices is human sacrifice. Aghoraghaṇṭa plots to sacrifice the heroine of the play to Chāmuṇḍā, but is finally killed by the hero. The nun wears a necklace of skulls, and carries a heavy rod from which hangs a string of bells.

First 173 of 353 passages. Read on

Cites (147)